There’s no single thing I find most convincing. It’s all the disparate things taken together that I find convincing. One can certainly contrive plausible sounding explanations for one observed phenomenon at a time but when contrivance must be heaped upon contrivance it becomes apparent that it’s an informal logical fallacy of assuming the result. It’s assumed that the universe was created 6000 years ago then any empirical data to the contrary is somehow made to fit that result.

Little needs to be contrived to explain an old universe and the list of conforming things is vast from rates of radioactive decay, to radiative cooling of planets, to tree rings, to sedimentation, to erosion, to plate tectonics, to stellar evolution, to colliding galaxies, to matter collapsing under gravity, to the light from distant objects reaching us in a span of time constrained by a maximum speed of 300 million meters per second for electromagnetic wave propagation. I can’t pick just one as the most compelling. It’s the combined weight of all of them being handily explained by a few basic laws of physics.

I picked the tree ring example as the first in the series because it was a good example of a process that requires not a whole lot more than 6000 years. I picked ice cores second because those up the ante to a million years and is a different process. I chose the formation of the Hawaiin island chain next because that ups the ante again to millions of years and is yet another process. I chose colliding galaxies next because the process is so different from any of the others and the example given ups the ante to hundreds of millions of years for shockwave from the collision to propagate as far as it did at 200,000 miles per hour. Even if the shockwave were somehow travelling at the speed of light it would still take 150,000 years to travel that far.

Explanations for all these things happening in 6000 years or less will be highly contrived while the explantions for them occuring over longer periods of time require no contrivances.

I remember being incredulous the first time I heard the notion of a young earth. It wasn’t until looking into the evidence for a young earth, and for an old earth for myself that my mind began to change. So I don’t blame you a bit for being skeptical and I wouldn’t expect your mind to be changed by anything less than rigorous examination of lots of information for yourself. I suspect at this point you probably aren’t the slightest bit interested in doing that because you think it would be a huge waste of time.

I addressed the first item on the list of evidences you gave for believing in an old earth. Often people tend to list what they think is the strongest evidence first. Maybe that wasn’t the case for you, but my rebuttal of tree-rings didn’t seem to faze you in the least. Again, I don’t blame you if you want to have each and every evidence you can think up addressed, but I simply don’t have time to try to address every argument you could come up with.

What I would ask of you is this: Would you mind taking just a little bit of time thinking about what you consider the MOST convincing single evidence for an old earth? Something that is so strong in your opinion that if someone were able show that it was possible to interpret this evidence from a young-earth framework, it would at least give you pause to think “maybe I should give this whole age-of-the-Earth thing a rethink.” I know you have asked about colliding galaxies, but I get the impression that it may been first thing that came to your mind, and may not be the most convincing evidence that you can think of. Frankly, it would probably take me some time to do some digging before I could address this one, and I have many things on my plate right now. I don’t mind spending some time on this if you think you are willing to have your mind changed by the evidence, if you are not really willing, then I can put my time to better use right now. I would hate to spend a lot of time on it and have you say, “well that’s fine but what about this OTHER piece of evidence?”

It may take to some time to research what ever you come up with, so please be patient with me. We can take this discussion off-line if you prefer.

Hope you have a great day!

That was thought provoking. I felt provoked even before finishing it.

Wow.

for Plato all matter was evil; the only thing of any value was pure intellect.

“Shadows and dust, General Maximus, we are but shadows and dust….”

I think the Gnostics held this also, which claims the body per se is evil. Human flesh, that is, misinterpreting Paul’s warnings about the failings of the Flesh to mean not the Sin Nature but human bodies per se.

In philosophy, theory tends to appeal to those who have a psychological need for negation. They are unhappy, and they long for a transforming moment, and theory appears to make such a moment possible because of its capacity to negate the value of that which exists. Hence for Plato all matter was evil; the only thing of any value was pure intellect.

Unfortunately theory leads to nothingness by negating existent values. Just as it was impossible for Plato to describe beauty in any concrete way after he had negated the beauty of actual things, so it was impossible for Russell and Sartre to give any concrete substance to their concept of value after negating the value of nature.

A more mature view of nature sees it as a blend of goodness and things that are not so desirable. Clearly the design of the cell, of human organs, of the body itself, of a tree, of the galaxy, of our atmosphere and the ecosystem–clearly all of these things are “very good.” They are very well designed. Clearly the overwhelming beauty of nature and her creatures is also good. To deny this self-evident goodness is a form of insanity.

But nature is not “the good,” as Aristotle came too close to claiming. Nowhere in the sacred text is there any claim that nature is the good–is equal in value or even approximate to God.

Nature is a mortal thing. The instances of “creulty” cited by Russell and his fellow narcissists are not only anthropomorphic–are not only, as Lewis pointed out, a pathetic fallacy–but are also part of its mortality.

In scripture, goodness is attributed to God only. Nothing in the mortal realm is “good” in the sense that God is good. The light of men is said to be life–the thing all men desire most. But men are mixed creatures. There is life in them–they are alive–and yet at the same time they are mortal.

We have just come through a harrowing age of theory and unjustified optimism about the potential of man to save himself without God. When we were children, we reasoned like children. But now that it has become abundantly evident that the theories of Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud cannot save us, perhaps it is time to start reasoning like adults.

Such reasoning requires a balanced view of nature and rejects the preening spitefulness seen in Russell and his friends, who care for nothing but making themselves seem wise.

Wakefield

Well in principle I agree completely, Dave S.

I think evil, like all issues that must deal with intention (which is what I actually think the Cosmos is about, in answer to the question someone had if I were a darwinian or not..)

Lions are no more “evil” than caterpillars munching on leaves if by “evil” we mean the intent to harm beyond filling the stomach.

However, it is a keystone of Christianity, as Dr. Dembski pointed out at his Design Inference blog, that the term HAS been applied to unpleasant actions like predation and death or just falling off things and getting hurt. In tradition the “godhead of humanity” (mentioned by St. Paul, BTW) caused this at the Fall. One assumes that Paul, being a Pharisee, had a leg up on Hebrew scholarship about why bad things happen to good people and animals alike. While science cannot find the 8 person bottleneck in the Ark or the limited gene pool of the “two of every kind”, the Scriptures do indicate that before the flood meat was not on the menu for human beings. Except maybe Abel’s offering…

Satisfied with neither the literalist interpretation of Genesis or the Lewis interpretation that acknowledged the time issues of a young earth and predation that preceded humans, Dr. Dembski comes up with a novel if unprovable assumption about God foreseeing this issue.

So while lions nor bugs nor bats are evil per se, this unpleasantry is STILL the “side result” of mankind’s Fall. I am not going to delve too much into this except to make the point that by “evil” we can’t mean of course that animals cogitate on vengeance and anger or sin. Rather, while his approach is different in arrangement, Dr. Dembski seems to acknowledge that God foresaw that the contrast of the good with gore would cause people to understand their own actions and thus appreciate the light from darkness.

Now–as to engineering or reverse engineering any creature, especially carnivorous, to meet human expectations. This is tricky. Dogs are not good examples due to their herd nature. Humans are now the masters. Not all killers like to kill humans on a regular basis (though wolves and dogs and other precusors to dogs no doubt preyed on humans at one time).

An honest breeder will assure you that the German Shepard and Pit Bull are still killers, and the Victorian penchant for making little lap yappers has not taken all their aggressiveness away, though it has given many breeds hip displaysia and the need for Caesarian birth.

My expertise is in crocodilians, actually. Perhaps not the best example, as they neither herd (though some are communal) nor have been bred by humans for any sport or protective purpose beyond leather and meat and cheapjack entertainment, they are the smartest of the reptiles and fiendishly clever hunters, looking for travel patterns before striking, sometimes weeks later.

In captivity they have wide ranges of behavior of many of the same species that have killed or critically injured their keepers or some that let you rub their backs.

They can and will learn patterns and people.

My Alexandra is a small croc who won’t mess with me due to the fact that I intimidate her. Women and chidren can’t approach her enclosure. She won’t mess with me as I won’t give her the reaction she is looking for. I have shaved off about 20% of her aggressiveness. I have no illusions, however, that were she large enough she’d shave the meat off the fingers of anyone like a chicken wing if she had a bad scale day.

It WOULD be interesting to see how far this “engineering” might work. In point of fact, there USED to be a veggie croc millions of years ago.

A dead end completly–or is a linkage still there?

I don’t know.

Most people who try and “tame” any wild animal generally end up in disappointment, even with mammals like the big felines and bears.
She is not trustworty. Lions and bears and tigers have been known to be TV stars and cute pets one day and then after 25 years of living near master’s sofa have killed other animals and even their owners in these crazy stories you hear about.

Not trustworthy.

Keep in mind also that dogs can be made to obey. What pleases the master pleases the pack. Alex knows I can ring her neck.

Felines don’t work this way. They are absurdly cute until the day the 400 pounder is large enough to crack your skull with its incisors, which has also happened. Or chew your neck (see Sigfreid and Roy on this one).

This thread is too long already. Just shoot me an email thesciphishow@gmail.com and i’ll be happy to talk.

But that is the point. The argument requires more than educated guesses it requires knowledge.

The quality of the argument will depend on how good you think the guesses are. But because it is based on guess work it undercuts the strength of the argument.

Many people describe evil as what makes them feel uncomfortable. The more squeamish we get, the more something becomes evil to us. The richer we get and more privileges we have the more we feel guilty at any harm to others including animals.

The anthropomorphism of pets is a particular case. We look at our dog or other pet and put ourselves in their place and we do not like what we see when they are treated poorly. This feeling is doing wonders for the the pet care business as pet owners are making play dates for their pets. It is spawning businesses that are now supporting families and not just a way to make some spare cash.

True evil is someplace else than how one animal treats another in the wild.

If certain ideas in quantum mechanics are true (I am no expert) and if we are the only sentient life in the universe. That means that our minds (let’s not kid ourselves, apes and dolphins are not men) could be entangled with the cosmos. After all the universe is supposed to be mind-stuff right?

So if our actions can effect the universe, then perhaps because of our sin there is natural evil.

Could anyone express in a better way?